Judge Blocks Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Again \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge in Washington state has blocked President Trump’s order banning transgender individuals from serving in the U.S. military, marking the second nationwide injunction against the policy in a week. The ruling emphasized a lack of evidence supporting the ban and defended the rights and service of transgender troops.
Trump’s Transgender Military Ban Blocked: Quick Looks
- Judge Benjamin Settle in Washington state issues nationwide injunction
- Ruling challenges Trump’s January executive order banning transgender service
- Court found no evidence justifying the sudden policy reversal
- Navy Cmdr. Emily Shilling, a decorated combat veteran, cited in the case
- Judge calls government’s arguments weak and unsupported
- Second ruling after a D.C. judge temporarily blocked the policy last week
- Thousands of transgender individuals serve in the U.S. military
- Biden reversed a similar Trump-era ban after taking office in 2021
Deep Look
A federal judge in Washington state on Thursday issued a nationwide injunction against President Donald Trump’s executive order banning transgender people from serving in the military, marking the second such ruling in as many weeks and dealing another major blow to the administration’s controversial policy.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle, a former U.S. Army JAG captain and a George W. Bush appointee, was in response to a lawsuit brought by multiple transgender military service members and the Gender Justice League, a Seattle-based advocacy group.
Judge Settle’s 65-page ruling declared the ban unconstitutional, noting that the government had failed to provide any evidence that allowing transgender individuals to serve had harmed military readiness or cohesion during the four years they had served openly under prior policy.
“The government’s arguments are not persuasive, and it is not an especially close question on this record,” Settle wrote. “The government’s unrelenting reliance on deference to military judgment is unjustified in the absence of any evidence supporting ‘the military’s’ new judgment reflected in the Military Ban.”
Transgender Navy Commander’s Story at the Heart of Ruling
Settle pointed to the service record of U.S. Navy Cmdr. Emily “Hawking” Shilling, a 42-year-old transgender woman who has served in the Navy for over 19 years, including 60 combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The judge highlighted that there was no claim or evidence that Shilling posed any threat to her unit or the military’s readiness.
“There is no claim and no evidence that she is now, or ever was, a detriment to her unit’s cohesion, or to the military’s lethality or readiness,” Settle wrote. “Yet absent an injunction, she will be promptly discharged solely because she is transgender.”
Shilling and other plaintiffs described the potential firings as deeply damaging to their careers, reputations, and sense of honor, and emphasized that they had met all physical, mental, and operational standards required by the military.
Legal Challenges Mount Against Ban
The ruling follows a similar decision last week by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C., who issued a preliminary block on the policy but then temporarily stayed her own ruling pending appeal. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has said it will revisit whether to lift the stay if any action harms transgender troops.
Earlier this week, a separate ruling in New Jersey barred the Air Force from discharging two transgender servicemen, ruling that monetary compensation wouldn’t adequately repair the irreparable harm to their careers.
These mounting legal challenges reflect growing judicial skepticism toward the administration’s assertion that gender identity undermines military discipline and effectiveness.
Trump’s Executive Order Under Fire
Trump signed the executive order on January 27, claiming that transgender identity conflicts with a soldier’s “honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle.” The order was swiftly followed by a Defense Department policy issued by Secretary Pete Hegseth, which presumptively bans all transgender individuals from serving—without exception, even for those who had begun transitioning under previous policy.
Justice Department lawyers defended the ban by claiming the president is entitled to wide discretion in military matters. However, during arguments in Tacoma, Judge Settle repeatedly questioned why the government had not produced a single piece of evidence showing harm caused by transgender troops.
“They can do the right number of pullups. They can do the right amount of pushups. They can shoot straight,” said Sasha Buchert, an attorney with Lambda Legal, who represented several plaintiffs. “Yet, they’re being told they have to leave the military simply because of who they are.”
History of Transgender Military Service
Transgender individuals have served openly in the U.S. military since a 2016 Obama-era policy lifted the previous ban. Thousands of transgender troops are currently on active duty, though they represent less than 1% of the total U.S. military population.
In 2017, Trump announced via Twitter his intention to ban transgender military service, which led to a policy that permitted some previously-transitioned individuals to remain, but barred new enlistments and limited future service. That policy was eventually allowed to take effect by the U.S. Supreme Court, though it was later rescinded by President Joe Biden on his first day in office in 2021.
The latest executive order and accompanying military directives under Trump go further, allowing no exemptions and seeking full implementation across all branches of service.
What’s Next
With multiple courts now blocking enforcement, and legal appeals pending, the future of the ban remains uncertain. However, the rulings send a clear message: that courts are increasingly skeptical of sweeping military policy changes not supported by data or evidence.
Legal experts predict that if the administration continues to pursue enforcement, the case could eventually make its way back to the Supreme Court, reigniting the national debate over equal rights, military readiness, and the treatment of LGBTQ+ individuals in public service.
Judge Blocks Trump’s
You must Register or Login to post a comment.